In an editorial a few days ago, captioned “Music Monster!” we highlighted the unconscionable attack of a ‘missile barrage’ on the Warisali family, of West Bank Demerara, because of a report that the elder Warisali had made to the La Grange Police station. This was relative to deafening music emanating from a neighbourhood wedding house that this family had to endure, until they could have taken it no more.

In that piece we urged “…….. that the authorities begin to take condign action against these music monsters, or citizens like the Warisalis and numerous others throughout our communities will continue to suffer a definite health hazard, and risk of abuse and personal attack, such as what this West Bank family suffered because they protested.” It was a fair admonishment, because of citizens’ numerous complaints of either slow responses/inaction on the part of the police.
But as if taking up our challenge, a media report captioned “Police not pleased with Magistrate’s decision in noise nuisance” does convey a situation totally unexpected in the light of prompt police action.
We are told that a certain businessman, Vishnu Ramdial, had been charged with two counts of noise nuisance to which he had pleaded guilty. He was also arraigned for threatening language against the complainant to which he has entered a not guilty plea.
But despite acceding to a plea of guilty to the noise nuisance offence, he was reprimanded and discharged by the Magistrate, a result which has elicited a frank statement of both disagreement and disapproval from the police.
Of course the police has reiterated the well-known fact of noise nuisance “plaguing the society, with numerous complaints……….”the police expend a lot of time and resources in processing noise nuisance reports. They also bemoan that “……prosecuting the alleged offenders has been problematic, since the complainants in most cases are reluctant to testify in court.”
Of course we are taught to respect the Court’s decision. A position in principle we do accept. However, in all objectivity and fairness to the police in this extant matter, one should agree with their more than great disappointment at seeing an offender, charged, accepting culpability by way of guilty plea, only to be let off by the court. We ask whether there were mitigating/special circumstances in the defendant’s favour that earned him such a let-off? At least, such has not been reported in the press.
We support due process, as it is the enshrined procedure of every democratic state where the Rule of Law is sacrosanct. It means that an alleged offender, when apprehended by the Law, is charged and placed before the courts for the determination of guilt or otherwise. Further, it is a fact that in some instances, guilt is difficult to prove because of myriad reasons which will not detain us here. But this case of the East Coast businessman is simple in every respect, even more so, since the offender pleaded guilty to the charge. And so, we, just as the Police, are baffled that he has not been sanctioned, in any form, particularly for an offence that is a national epidemic, and causing distress to so many of our citizens. So many are suffering because of the unending monstrosity that is noise nuisance!
The judicial authorities are expected to support the efforts of law enforcement. It is the legitimate expectation of every society that is governed by laws that guilty persons be made to suffer penalty accordingly, as this businessman ought to have. The punishment must fit the crime.
In this particular matter mentioned above, the police did their work; but have been let down.